Myth and Fact: The Truth About Ella and How it Works

     

1) Myth: Ella is an "emergency contraceptive," just like Plan B, but it works longer and more effectively.

Fact: Ella works very differently than Plan B, which is also referenced to as a "morning after pill." Plan B can prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus, thereby causing its demise. However, Plan B cannot terminate an already implanted embryo, whereas Ella can. Ella is a different type of chemical compound than Plan B (Levonorgestrel). Plan B is a kind of progesterone, and progesterone is needed by the uterine lining to grow and feed the embryo. Ella is a selected progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). An SPRM blocks progesterone receptors and thereby starves a developing baby of this needed protein. According to the FDA, only one SPRM has been approved for drug use in the United States: RU-486 (Mifepristone) -- a known producer of abortions for first-trimester pregnancies.

2) Myth: Ella is not capable of causing abortions.

Fact: According to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU equivalent of the FDA, numerous studies show that Ella causes abortions in animals, including rats, rabbits, guinea pigs and macaques (similar to monkeys). Additionally, the EMEA indicated that Ella "is embryotoxic at low doses, when given to rats and rabbits." Given Ella's molecular similarity to RU-486 and this animal data, it is reasonable to conclude that Ella will abort human pregnancies.

3) Myth: Ella does not cause an abortion because it does not interrupt an established, implanted pregnancy.

Fact: Ella can cause the demise of an embryo that is already implanted in its mother's womb, in addition to preventing implantation after fertilization. Ella also appears to have a powerful ovulatory blocking capability.

4) Myth: Ella is safe for women's health.

Fact: The FDA looked at limited data on safety information and should conduct further studies on the effect of Ella on women's health. In addition to the studies looked at for approval, since Ella works similarly to RU-486, there is compelling reason to believe that it will likely have similar side effects. It may cause excessive bleeding and increase vulnerability to infection. The FDA has admitted that six women died as a result to RU-486 within six years of its approval. It is possible that other serious side effects of RU-486 have occurred but have not been reported. Women who take Ella should be aware of its potential side effects.

5) Myth: Since Ella is only being approved for use for five days it can not interfere with a pregnancy since implantation usually occurs between 6-10 days after fertilization.

Fact: Nothing would prevent providers from prescribing, or women from using, Ella off-label. Indeed, Planned Parenthood openly admits that providing emergency contraception beyond the 3-day FDA approved timeframe. Additionally, the Planned Parenthood website describes two off-label uses for RU-486: the organization prescribes the RU-486 abortion regimen at a lower dose than is approved by the FDA and they prescribe it after the 49-day FDA approved timeframe. The FDA is not able to prevent off-label and unapproved use of the drug. Once approved, the drug can be used off-label outside of FDA guidelines. Furthermore, a woman in early pregnancy can unknowingly take "Ella" within 5 days of a separate sexual encounter and unintentionally and unknowingly have an abortion because she believes emergency contraception will not harm an implanted fetus.

6) Myth: Ella is safe for women who are breastfeeding, and for their unborn and born children.

Fact: The FDA admits at least one case in which a baby exposed to Ella in utero had visual development problems and delayed gross motor skills. Despite this information, the FDA Advisory Panel did not suggest further studies on the potential for Ella to produce birth defects, either for babies in utero or those drinking their mother's breast-milk. Additionally, the EMEA stated that "Extremely limited data are available on the health of the foetus/new-born in case a pregnancy is exposed" to the drug, as well as "it has not been possible to evaluate the teratogenic (birth-defect) potential of ulipristal acetate (Ella)."

Contact: Jeanne Monahan
Source: FRC
Date Published: July 15, 2010

For Bill Gates Even Improving World Health is about Population Control

     

A relatively little-known video made last year provides a fascinating look at billionaire Bill Gates and his philanthropic endeavors.  In an interview with Chris Anderson of the show TED, the Microsoft mogul is asked whether by aiding the world's sick he is not in fact "adding enormously to the problem of overpopulation in the world."

Gates is enlivened by the question, and responds: "Okay, this is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me," he says. "When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did because I thought population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face.

"You've got to help mothers who want to limit family size, have the tools and education to do that. That's the only thing that really counts."

What got Gates into funding general health, and not only reproductive health, was the finding that, as he puts it: "the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health."

Gates admits that it seems counterintuitive, but explains that parents in impoverished nations are having many children in order to "have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them."

Gates noted that the highest population growth is concentrated in countries with the "worst health conditions."  He explains: "the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there's a perfect correlation, that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down."

Contrary to Gates' fears about overpopulation, however, demographers are in fact increasingly concerned about a worldwide depopulation as the world (and especially the West) experiences the effects of plummeting birthrates following the advent of the contraceptive mentality handed down from the sexual revolution.

In fact, in February, University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan decried the promotion of abortion as "women's health" in the Third World, telling Canada's National Post that it "seems to be based on the now discredited theory that poverty in the Third World is based on overpopulation."

"I don't think any serious scholar believes that anymore," he added.

While many population control advocates say cutting the Third World population would solve the hunger epidemic, the Popular Research Institute, which specializes in population issues, has noted that world food experts, such as the World Food Program, say there's no shortage of food, but a problem of distribution.  PRI emphasizes that the real problems leading to hunger are: poverty, war, natural disasters, environmental exploitation, and poor agricultural infrastructure.

Click here to see the video interview with Gates and for video download links.

Click here for the transcript of the interview with Gates.

Contact: John-Henry Westen and Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 14, 2010

Catholic Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood Award for Stopping Stupak Abortion Funding Ban

      

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, will receive an award from abortion giant Planned Parenthood at a reception Thursday evening. The award will be given in recognition of her efforts in passing the federal health care legislation, and, in particular, for her help in ensuring that the Stupak abortion funding ban was not inserted in the bill.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood confirmed with LifeSiteNews.com that Pelosi would be receiving the Champion for Women's Health award, which recognizes "efforts to support women and their reproductive health."

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) will also receive the award.

In a statement, PP lauds Pelosi for having been "instrumental" in the passage of the federal health care bill, which was strenuously opposed by every major pro-life organization in the U.S., as well as the U.S. Catholic bishops, because of its abortion mandate. The statment also praises Pelosi for having "led her female colleagues in Congress as they stood strong against attempts to insert the Stupak abortion ban into the bill." 

"With their steadfast commitment to passing health care reform and making sure that women will be able to get the health care they need, the women leaders we honor today set the course to change the lives of millions of women for generations to come," said PP President Cecile Richards.

While Pelosi and the Obama administration have repeatedly claimed that the health care law would not fund abortion, pro-life groups have warned that such claims are clearly contradicted by the facts. They have also warned that the last-minute Executive Order (EO) issued by Obama in exchange for the votes of the few remaining "pro-life" Democrats led by Bart Stupak does little more than "reiterate" what is already in the bill.

Immediately after the bill was passed in March Richards issued a statement dismissing the EO as a "symbolic" gesture, and announcing that "monumental progress" had been made in strengthening "women's health."

Ironically, at the very height of the health care debate, even as the U.S. bishops were stepping up their efforts against the bill and its abortion funding, Pelosi publicly invoked one of the most prominent Catholic saints – St. Joseph, who is also revered by Catholics as "patron" of the unborn - to help pass the health care bill.

"Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker," Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill in March. "It's a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America, and that's exactly what our health care bill will do."

This is not the first time that Pelosi has attempted to reconcile her pro-abortion views with her professed faith.

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 15, 2010

Missouri Governor Allows Expanded 24-Hour Abortion-Consent Law

      
 
Gov. Jay Nixon announced today that a bill, which expands the requirements made on abortion clinics, would go into effect without his signature.

The expanded 24-hour abortion consent law requires clinics to offer women the chance to have an ultrasound, as well as listen to the preborn baby's heartbeat.

The law goes into effect Aug. 28.

The state will provide printed materials, detailing the risks associated with abortion. It also includes the statement, "The life of each human being begins at conception.  Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." 

The brochure will also list available alternatives and what the preborn child looks like throughout the pregnancy.

In addition to enhanced informed consent provisions, the new law makes Missouri the fifth state to opt-out of abortion funding in the new federal health care law.

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: July 14, 2010

State blinks in standoff over pharmacists' rights

Trial over attempt to require handling of abortifacients canceled



     

A trial scheduled to begin just days from now on whether the state of Washington can force pro-life pharmacists to violate their own conscience and religious beliefs by requiring them to dispense abortifacients has been canceled.

The announcement about the pending July 26 trial in the lawsuit against the state and its officials over new rules from its pharmacy board comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which was preparing for the battle over conscience rights.

A stay order was issued by a federal court halting the proceedings when state officials agreed to begin a process that would result in modifications to allow pharmacists to refer patients seeking such death-dealing drugs to other pharmacies where there isn't a conflict with religious or personal beliefs, ADF said.

The lawsuit was launched in 2007 to safeguard the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies against state rules that were intended to force them to stock and distribute the drugs.

According to ADF, the "new regulations will protect conscience rights while also benefitting patients by mandating that all referrals are 'facilitated.'" That means a referral to another location where the products are available, ADF explained.

"Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn't be punished for looking out for their patients' health – and for abiding by their beliefs," said Steven H. Aden, the senior legal counsel who worked on the case for ADF.

"The pharmacy board was right in determining that facilitated referrals work to protect the patients' best interests and that, at the same time, pro-life pharmacists shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience. This is a win-win situation," he said.

Kristen Waggoner, one of nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, said the new rules "should ensure that customers receive prescribed drugs in the most efficient manner possible while at the same time respecting the conscience rights of pharmacists, who should never be forced to participate in the risk of destroying human life just to be able to preserve their professional licenses."

The order from U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton said the trial was stayed "to allow the board time to complete its rule-making processes."

"This court will lift the stay and set trial on an expedited basis upon plaintiffs request at any point in the future if plaintiffs reasonably believe at any time during the rule-making process that the proposed rules do not allow them to engage in a facilitated referral instead of stocking or dispensing Plan B," the ruling said.

The case had claimed the state was violating the constitutional rights of pharmacists by ordering them to stock and hand out the "morning-after" abortion pill.

"Plaintiffs, pharmacists and a pharmacy owner, have a conscientious objection to stocking and dispensing Plan B, the morning after pill," the judge noted officially. He earlier had refused a state request to dismiss the case.

The district court earlier issued an injunction against the state regulations.

On appeal from the state, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state of Washington failed to demonstrate that the abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called "Plan B" drug, weren't readily available already.

The lower court's original order found "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden by the Constitution" and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception."

The case developed when Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, received a telephone call about the availability of Plan B. After discovering the abortion-inducing results, Stormans, a Christian, decided his store would not stock the product.

Activists then launched a picketing campaign against him and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. Eventually his company, along with two individual pharmacists, was forced into the court action.

About that time, Democrats in Congress suggested fines of up to $500,000 if the pharmacists follow their conscience and decline to dispense abortifacient chemicals.

"Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said at the time. "The FDA has been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients' lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.

"Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their ethical duty," she said.

The bill, called the "Access to Birth Control Act," was pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Among the groups supporting the requirement were NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

The plan was to let "any person aggrieved" file a civil lawsuit for "appropriate relief, including actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and cost."

Plan B essentially is a very high dosage of birth-control chemicals taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or implantation. If ovulation is prevented, no egg is fertilized and no pregnancy occurs. But if ovulation has taken place and the egg is fertilized, the morning-after pill works to block implantation by the early embryo in the mother's womb. The embryo is aborted, making dispensing prescriptions for the pill a matter of conscience for pro-life pharmacists.

Pharmacists For Life International, a group that opposes abortion, cites a study showing seven of 10 pharmacists believe they have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that violate their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.

Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: July 15, 2010

H.H.S. Approves Pennsylvania Plan to Use Federal Funds to Subsidize Coverage of Nearly All Abortions in New 'High-Risk Pool' Program

      

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March -- and has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of Governor Edward Rendell (D) under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
 
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
 
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
 
An earlier version of the health care legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009, contained a provision (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) that would have prevented federal funds from subsidizing abortion or insurance coverage of abortion in any of the programs created by the bill, including the high-risk pool program. But President Obama opposed that pro-life provision, and it was not included in the bill later approved by both houses and signed into law. An executive order signed by the President on March 24, 2010 did not contain effective barriers to federal funding of abortion, and did not even mention the high-risk pool program.
 
"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.
 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost.   On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that "states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government."  
 
Details of the high-risk pool plans for most states are not yet available. But on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release (see: tinyurl.com/icrelease) announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency's proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania. "The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014," according to the release. "The plan's benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month."
 
Examination of the detailed Pennsylvania plan (posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/PennsylvaniaHighRiskPoolPlan.pdf), reveals that the "much more" will include insurance coverage of any legal abortion. 
 
The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered." However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define "elective." Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."
 
As a result, "Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."
 
A group of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who initially withheld support from the federal health care bill, because of concerns about pro-abortion effects, cited President Obama's March 24 executive order in justifying their votes to pass the bill over objections from NRLC and other pro-life groups, which argued that the executive order did not contain effective barriers to federal subsidies for abortion. As USA Today reported on March 25, "Both sides in the abortion debate came to a rare agreement on Wednesday: The executive order on abortion signed by President Obama, they said, was basically meaningless. 'A transparent political fig leaf,' according to the National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson. 'A symbolic gesture,' said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards."

Contact: Derrick Jones
Source: National Right to Life Committee
Date Published: July 13, 2010

U.S. Taxpayers to Subsidize New U.N. Agency Promoting Abortion

      

The U.S. will subsidize a new $500-million United Nations agency that conservatives say will likely promote an abortion agenda.
 
In what the United Nations deemed as a historic move, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously voted on July 2 to approve "U.N. Women," an agency intended to accelerate progress in achieving gender equality and women's empowerment.
 
While funding for the new agency's agenda will come primarily from voluntary contributions, the administrative costs of running the agency will come from the U.N.'s core budget, to which the U.S. is a major contributor.
 
The U.N. Committee on Contributions advises the General Assembly, under Article 17 of the United Nations Charter, on how much members will pay, based on each nation's capacity. 
 
Currently, the United States pays for 22 percent of the U.N.'s core budget.
 
The new agency is drawing negative reaction from conservative leaders concerned that the U.N. will use taxpayer dollars to take a step toward a worldwide right to abortion.
 
"This will be a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, told CNSNews.com. "It's a jobs program for women with elitist views and, like every other U.N. agency, will be plagued by waste, fraud and abuse. To help women who really need it, funding should go straight to the people and programs doing the work, not a bureaucratic middle-man that will host expensive conferences and lavish salaries." 
 
She called the agency's workings a "surreptitious" effort, believing that the agency's agenda extends much further than promoting abortion.
 
"The priority of the leaders who orchestrated the development of this 'uber-agency' is sexual and reproductive rights. That means abortion and sexual license -- homosexual, lesbian, prostitution, etc.," she told CNSNews.com.
 
Furthermore, she said that the agency would move to forcefully impose its views on the rest of society. 
 
"This agency would use power and money to coerce countries to accept their policy and legal demands. With a high-level position of Under-Secretary-General and offices within countries, it can work top-down and bottom-up to pressure governments to do what it wants," she said.
 
Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, believes that abortion will have a prominent role in the new agency.
 
"Certainly promoting a right to abortion will be a part of the agenda of this agency," he told CNSNews.com.
 
U.N. Women consolidates four U.N. women's agencies into one super agency that will be concerned with matters it sees as important to women. 
 
It will operate under the direction of an under secretary general, which the Secretary General of the United Nations appoints. 
 
"I have made gender equality and the empowerment of women one of my top priorities — from working to end the scourge of violence against women, to appointing more women to senior positions, to efforts to reduce maternal mortality rates," said Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.  
 
Ruse said that the U.N. uses the term "maternal mortality rates" as a "stocking horse" for abortion. 
 
He also challenged that the deaths resulting from pregnancy complications are much lower than the U.N. claims.
 
"For years, and this is a very important point, the United Nations has used a figure of 500, 000, that 500, 000 women die each year of pregnancy related causes. We have never believed that figure. It's a big figure. It scares people and the purpose of scaring people is to say 'Well, the answer to this is legal abortion,'" he said. 
 
The terms "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights" are the "code words" the U.N. uses to promote the abortion agenda, Ruse told CNSNews.com.

Contact: Christopher A. Guzman
Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: July 14, 2010

CDC Finds Most Teens are Virgins, Contrary to Planned Parenthood

       

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released a new study last month showing that most teens are virgins – which American Life League (ALL) has said contradicts propaganda disseminated by sex-education giant Planned Parenthood.

"This study has huge significance for our nation's public and even private schools - many of whom have been regurgitating Planned Parenthood's dangerously inaccurate sex-education curriculum," said Judie Brown, president of ALL.

In the 2006-2008 period, 58 percent of never-married teen girls and 57 percent of never-married teen boys between the ages of 15 and 19 reported that they had never had sexual intercourse.

The numbers did not substantially change since a similar report was released in 2002. The reason most often cited for abstaining was that it is "against religion or morals."

ALL says that the CDC report, entitled "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Child Bearing, National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)," debunks Planned Parenthood's constant mantra that most teens will not abstain. In particular the pro-life organization points to the words of Planned Parenthood Federation of America vice president of medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, from a YouTube video directed toward teens: "Admit that you are a sexually active individual like most of us, and that you are going to have sex and that you need to take precautions in order to stay healthy."

ALL says that the report builds a solid case against Planned Parenthood's promotion of sex education devoid of morality or religious influence – except for the "secular humanism" espoused by Planned Parenthood.

The report also revealed that "the vast majority of never married teenagers had not had intercourse in the month before the survey (76% of females and 79% of males, unchanged from 2002.)"

The number of "sexually experienced" teens peaked in 1988 at 51%.  The steady decline in sexually active teens coincides with the popularity and availability of abstinence education in the 1990s and into the 2000s.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 14, 2010

There's no scientific case for abortion

      

In a significant interview with Zenit, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life dismissed scientific arguments in favour of abortion. Monsignor Carrasco, previously chancellor of the Academy, has succeeded Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella as its president. (Pictured - shows Professor Jerome Lejeune, the founding president, and Madame Lejeune, with Pope John Paul II who set up the Academy.)

Asked by Zenit "How can the embryo be defended from the scientific point of view?" Monsignor Carrasco replied: 
"The problem is not scientific. The embryo is very well defended from that point of view. The problem is essentially of a socio-political and ideological nature and here scientific arguments don't count. It is a realm in which what counts is power and if the one who has power has no desire to dialogue or, at least to reflect somewhat, then he doesn't have much to do with other guidelines."

This is fighting talk and it's good to hear. Monsignor Carrasco goes on to challenge politicians and political lobbyists to be tougher in their defence of the unborn: 

" ... in the end what remains is the political weapon and the political weapon that we citizens have today is weak. Those who know politics can do much more and that is their very grave responsibility. Speaking in soccer language, lets say it's that they have the ball."

Monsignor Carrasco ridicules the concept of the right to abortion, saying: 

"I don't know when we will arrive at the right to steal but behind these laws what exists is a relativistic logic".
And the new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life boldly suggests that defenders of the unborn should change the language of the debate. In a poignant passage in the Zenit interview he says: 

"One of the problems we have with regard to the embryo is that it isn't seen. Instead of embryo we should speak of a child who is in the initial phase of development. Because we cannot see him, he is in a situation of tremendous danger, at tremendous risk."

Monsignor Carrasco announces in the interview that the Academy starts work this September studying post-abortion syndrome. 

"The mission is not to demonstrate that this syndrome exists but to see what it is exactly and what it is like."

Again, this is forthright language. I pray that the work of the Academy on post-abortion syndrome will help women and men worldwide and provide an invaluable new resource to bodies like Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline (ARCH) launched earlier this year in Britain.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
Date Published: July 14, 2010

New 'Freedom Ride' targets culture of abortion

Alveda King working for recognition of civil rights of unborn



      

The "Freedom Rides" are not over!

Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., is launching a series of bus rides from Alabama to Georgia, starting July 24, to advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.

The "Pro-Life Freedom Ride" is modeled after the original civil rights protests from the 1960s.

King was only 10 when the original freedom riders boarded a bus in Washington, D.C., May 4, 1961. They were protesting segregation in public transportation in Southern states.

Both black and white riders wanted to raise awareness of continuing obstacles to desegregation despite a Supreme Court ruling that said segregated seating of interstate passengers was unconstitutional.

When the riders reached Alabama, they divided into two groups. One group took a bus to Anniston, Ala., and the other Birmingham. The goal was to travel to New Orleans, with black riders in the front and white riders in the back.

Neither group made it. Both buses ran into mobs that took their rage out on the freedom riders. The bus in Anniston was stoned and later firebombed outside of town. The bus to Birmingham also was stopped, with the freedom riders being beaten by locals.

Despite the setbacks, more freedom riders joined the next leg of the trip to Montgomery, Ala. Police protection helped the riders reach Montgomery safely, but once inside the city limits, the riders were attacked again and beaten at the Greyhound terminal.

Martin Luther King flew to Montgomery to hold a protest at a church there. Outside, another mob of nearly 2,000 people surrounded the church, and King called U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who, with federal marshals, intervened and helped blacks inside the church escape further harm.

The original freedom riders did not get to New Orleans, but now they had the attention of the nation.

Alveda King was too young to ride at the time, but she was very aware of everything going on.

"As a child of the movement … at the feet of my uncle Martin Luther King Junior, and my father the Rev. A.D. King, I was aware of everything," she said.

King added that in 1963, her home in Birmingham was firebombed although she and her family escaped..

That changed Alveda King.

She said she became more than aware of what was going on. Later that year, she participated in a first-of-a-kind children's civil rights march protesting racial inequality.

King said the 2010 freedom rides are focusing on drawing more African-Americans into the pro-life movement and increasing awareness of legal protection for unborn children. She also wants to raise the level of consciousness of all Americans concerning the injustice against the unborn.

Her colleague, Priests for Life national director Father Frank Pavone, also will participate in the freedom ride.

Pavone said he hopes the event will increase national interest in the rights of the unborn.

"This is a novel approach … the event connected with the freedom rides will be an opportunity for groups and leaders to come together and inspire everyone to work more effectively," Pavone said.

King met Pavone at a conference in New York where they were both speaking. King said she heard Pavone reading from her uncle's work, "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

In the letter, King warned against the impact of infanticide against a community when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Alveda King believes the same statement applies to abortion, and she now works with Pavone as a pastoral associate at Priests for Life.

Both King and Pavone said they are in regular contact with current civil rights leaders, and that they are working to build bridges and common ground by communicating their pro-life activities.

When asked if her famous uncle would have supported the pro-life movement, Alveda King was not shy in her response: "There is no way this non- violent compassionate man could agree to the violent murder of babies."

King and Pavone will be joined in Birmingham with other members from the Priests for Life pastoral team July 23, and they will host a "Freedom Concert" at the local civic center.

African-American leaders from across the nation are expected to participate as well.

Priests for Life will hold a peaceful demonstration at a Planned Parenthood abortion business July 24, then board the freedom bus for about a two-and-a-half-hour ride to Atlanta.

That afternoon, Priests for Life and the new freedom riders will hold a prayer vigil at the tomb of Martin Luther King.

Pavone said plans are for the ride to be the start of a new movement to raise awareness for the civil rights of unborn children.

Contact: Thom Redmond
Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: July 13, 2010

US Gov't IS Funding the Kenya 'Yes' Campaign

Embassy Denial Contradicted by Obama Administration's 'Get Out the Yes Vote' Grant Program for Kenya



     

A series of U.S. taxpayer-funded agreements awarded to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) by the Obama Administration clearly contradicts recent statements issued by the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi claiming neutrality in the Kenya constitutional referendum scheduled for a vote in early August. 

"There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the 'yes' campaign in Kenya," said Rep. Chris Smith, one of three U.S. lawmakers who have requested an investigation into U.S. activities leading up to the referendum on a proposed constitution that would liberalize the abortion law in Kenya.

"By funding NGOs charged with obtaining 'yes' votes, the Administration has crossed the line," he said. 

"Directly supporting efforts to register 'yes' voters and 'get out the yes vote' means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other."

As part of ongoing discussions with the Office of the Inspector General of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Representatives Smith (Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee), and Darrell Issa (Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee) received a chart listing USAID funding recipients and a summary of their agreements.

For example, two organizations are receiving over $150,000 to "contribute to an 'overrepresentation' of the YES voters," and five organizations have been charged with registering a total of 100,000 "for a YES vote" at the referendum. Other Kenyan groups are being given funding for similar YES vote efforts.

"The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide," Smith said. "The Obama Administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum."

Contact: Jeff Sagnip
Source: Congressman Chris Smith
Date Published: July 14, 2010

DISCLOSE Act Vote Possible Before U.S. Congress Leaves for August Recess

      
 
With just three weeks remaining before the August recess, nonprofits are warily monitoring an anti-free-speech bill, authored by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The DISCLOSE Act – an acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act" – dictates that burdensome reporting requirements and penalties would be levied against lobbying groups who want to communicate on election issues. The law would go into effect 30 days after being signed by President Obama. This only fuels claims that the true intent is to minimize Democrat losses come November and restrict free speech.

George Will summed up the DISCLOSE Act in his Sunday Washington Post editorial as this: "In Congress, measures ostensibly aimed at eliminating corruption – or the 'appearance' thereof – illustrate the corruption inherent in incumbents writing laws that regulate political competition by rationing political speech."

Sean Parnell, with the Center for Competitive Politics – whose mission is to promote and defend the First Amendment political rights of speech, assembly, and petition – is certain that the Senate will move on the bill before recess; however, just how this will be done remains to be seen.

"(This bill) overwhelmingly favors organized labor over business interests," said Parnell, "because it exempts organized labor from significant portions of the bill.

"Furthermore, it would require private organizations to reveal their membership and donor lists."

As to the chances of stopping the bill, Parnell said, "Sen. Mitch McConnell has always been a staunch advocate of the First Amendment and I do believe that he will make an effort to filibuster the bill. I think he's got a pretty good chance of blocking this on the floor."

Click here to contact your Senator. 
Ask them to vote "NO" on the Disclose Act S 3295.

Source: CitizenLink

Pro-aborts want to silence pregnancy center ads

     

Pro-life pregnancy centers are denouncing a bill before Congress to regulate their advertising.
 
A prominent pro-life group says the National Abortion Rights Action League -- now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America -- and other pro-abortion groups are bringing up what they consider to be false advertising claims against pro-life pregnancy centers and asking Congress to pass stiff regulations. Those groups are questioning the pregnancy centers' ads that appear in online yellow page directories under the headline "abortion services."
 
Care Net calls the move "just another attempt to shut down the competition."
 
"What this is bringing to light is the fact that pregnancy centers are becoming more effective in reaching out to women via the Internet -- and it is garnering attention," states Care Net spokesperson Joy Crosby.
 
She points out that each woman or girl who decides to give her baby life rather than a death sentence is cutting into abortion clinics' profits. Crosby says the bill, sponsored by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), is designed to completely shut down the ability of pregnancy centers to advertise.
 
"Honestly, it's completely unnecessary," she argues, "because the Federal Trade Commission already has truth in advertising regulations out there that cover pregnancy centers as well as any other business or non-profit organization."
 
According to Crosby, abortion clinics are covered by the same rules -- but she maintains that when it comes to the abortion issue, Congress is more attentive to the voice of pro-abortion forces. She believes out of fairness the bill should be killed, and any complaint against pregnancy centers ought to be filed with the FTC.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: July 13, 2010

U.S. Embassy Denies Funding Campaign for Pro-Abort Kenya Constitution

      

Following the launch of a probe into whether the federal government is illegally supporting a new pro-abortion constitution for Kenya, Officials at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi have denied that America is funding a campaign favoring the document, saying only that the U.S. supports "the constitutional review process."

In a statement released today, the U.S. embassy emphasized that "The US Government is supporting the constitutional review process as the centrepiece of the broad reform agenda agreed to following the post-election crisis," as reported by Kenya's Daily Nation.

"The referendum is in the hands of Kenyans. They will be alone in the voting booth, voting their conscience. The US Government stands with the people of Kenya. We encourage the Kenyan people to vote in a free and fair referendum, towards a peaceful and prosperous future," continued the statement.

However, previous words and actions of the Obama administration indicate that their interests lie beyond mere constitutional review. U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, confirmed in May that the U.S. has offered $2 million in public funds for "civic education" to support the process of enacting a new constitution, according to Fox news.

Additionally, last month Vice President Joe Biden travelled to Kenya where he promised monetary support to the nation should the constitution be passed. "We are hopeful, Barack Obama is hopeful, I am hopeful that you will carry out these reforms to allow money to flow," he told a Kenyan crowd. Biden also stressed that the work of pro-life U.S. groups against the constitution should not be confused with the Obama administration's position, and called the groups' opposition "one of the drawbacks of democracy."

An email from Biden's office to Fox News later emphasized that the vice president believed the decision ultimately to be "up to the Kenyan people."

The new constitution's language on abortion, which broadly allows medical providers to conduct abortions if the mother's "health" is endangered, is considered one of the top sources of controversy over the document.

An investigation has been launched by three U.S. congressmen with legal oversight jurisdiction into whether the U.S. support for the constitution amounts to a breach of the Siljander amendment, which forbids the use of foreign aid funds to lobby for abortion. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has said that, as of May, as much as $10 million in taxpayer dollars may have been spent in support of the new constitution.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 12, 2010

Passing on the Pro-Life Hope: One Video at a Time

      

One Wisconsin pro-life organization has adopted a unique and simple strategy to inspire people to celebrate a culture of life. 

Wisconsin Right to Life's new pro-life evangelism is the "Pass this on for me" campaign: a section of their website, where they find uplifting videos posted on YouTube celebrating life and family, allowing others to pass on their powerful and positive messages.  Click here for the video.

     

Perhaps the most powerful video WRTL has posted on their website is the story of "Bryce Daniel," whose mother describes in the video how she and her husband struggled to have children, facing the heartbreak of two miscarried babies before conceiving a third time.

However, in the 35th week of pregnancy, an ultrasound revealed that their long-awaited baby had hydrocephaly: a condition in which fluid builds up in the brain, and which often leads to death shortly after birth. Specialists recommended abortion, and implied that her future fertility was on the line if she did not: "We could decompress your baby's head and take him out, so you can have kids again," said one specialist.

Despite the pain of knowing what might happen, she said, "I was not going to end the life of my baby."

Bryce Daniel was born at just over 9 pounds, and video shows both parents beaming at him proudly. But for thirteen minutes, his mother recounted, Bryce neither moved nor breathed, with a heartbeat fading away.

"I remember saying, 'Lord, please give me more time with my baby,'" she said – a prayer that, according to the video, was soon answered well above and beyond the parents' hopes. 

"I've been involved for a long time, and that one got me. It was just absolutely fabulous," said Barbara Lyons, WRTL's Executive Director in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com about the "Pass it on" videos. "These stories are so real, so personal, and so incredible," said Lyons. "And I just think they give real value to our cause, because it puts a more personal touch to it."

Lyons said the idea came from a friend in the advertising field, who suggested generating "a series of positive messages" to be passed on, hopefully creating a viral effect. 

"One of the things we do with the 'Pass it On' campaign is to tell people, 'send us something,' and that is what happened," Lyons said.

The story of Bryce Daniel, she said, showed how doctors recommending abortion puts a great deal of pressure on the parents, who are sometimes convinced it would be cruel to deliver a baby who would die shortly after birth. 

"It makes their pregnancy, their thought process so much more complicated, when you have a 'professional' telling you: 'you should just abort this child, it's better for you, it's better for him/her.'" said Lyons. "The courage it takes for people to ignore that advice, I think is so inspiring."

Lyons said the campaign is meant to complement the "heavy" messages the pro-life movement often sends to expose the grave evil of abortion.  "It's very uplifting, and it's a real morale booster for our own people," she said. 

One video features television star and former wrestler Mr T., distinctive for his Mohawk hairstyle, telling kids to "treat your mother right." 

"If it weren't for your mother, you wouldn't be here," the wrestler says. "When you put down one mother, you put down mothers all over the world." 

The site also features a video of clips from Hollywood movies praising fatherhood, such as Rocky Balboa, Star Wars, and Finding Nemo, among others. It ends with the message: "Fatherhood begins when a child is conceived, and lasts forever."   

Click here to see WRTL's "Pass this on" campaign.

Contact: Peter J. Smith 
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 12, 2010

The Pill's 50th: Documentary Reveals Largely Hidden Controversy

      

Dr. Albert Mohler, Seminary President has stated, "I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the pill."
 
     

The Birth Control Pill Documentary from T Herbert on Vimeo.

Click here to view the full documentary "28 Days on the Pill"   
 
A Christian worker, his family and a nurse friend investigate throughout North America to uncover the truth about the birth control pill. The debate has been raging for over a decade and yet many people don't know about it. How could this be? How does the pill really work? Can everyday oral contraceptives really cause abortions? Why are so many people uninformed?
 
Discover how this could be a deadly silence. Find out what has shocked doctors and nurses.
 
Whether Christian or not, women across the board do not have a real understanding of how the pill actually works. Does it only prevent ovulation? What do the inserts and pharmaceutical guides really say? How is it that women consume something when they know very little about how it actually works? Do women and men really care?
 
The producers believe they should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice. No matter what one's conclusions are, they believe everyone has a right to full information and informed consent. Whether on the left or the right, we should all agree, informed consent in the medical community is paramount.
 
This is a good start to the investigative work of how informed we really are, what we take for granted, who might know and may not want to tell.
 
The question is why? Why the silence? The topic that for many has been too hot to handle.
 
The documentary features: Dr. Albert Mohler (quoted in Time Magazine's recent article on The Pill), The Duggars (19 children and counting), Christian author Randy Alcorn (i.e. Heaven, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?) and Dr. Walt Larimore (formerly with Focus on the Family).

Contact: Trent Herbert
Source: 28daysonthepill.com
Date Published: July 13, 2010

Pro-life rally in Belfast draws crowd of 4,000

      

A rally in northern Ireland sponsored by several pro-life organizations drew a crowd of close to 4,000 on July 4.

The forth annual All Ireland pro-life event was held in Belfast and led by pro-life groups in the area, including Precious Life, Youth Defense and the Life Institute.

Youth Defense reported that the colorful, festive parade attracted attention from the city's inhabitants as they marched through Belfast's high density shopping district to Custom House Square, where the attendees heard speeches from pro-life leaders. The day's events also included face-painting, balloons and music for the family-filled crowd.

"We're so delighted to see that the number of people coming out to protect life is growing every year. The Rally was a great day out for everyone – a real occasion to celebrate life," Ide Nic Mhathúna of the organizing committee told Youth Defense. "And most importantly it brought people together to stand against abortion, and to become part of the important work done north and south to protect human life."

The event organizer also highlighted in her remarks that the rally is "an important reminder to our politicians that the majority of Irish people are pro-life."

One of the speakers, Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute, addressed the need during her speech for Irish citizens to work to ensure that proposed legislation banning embryonic stem cell research is passed. Uí Bhriain also spoke on the upcoming efforts this summer to reach 600,000 people in the country with the pro-life message.

Bernadette Smyth of the group Precious Life closed the rally with a speech urging the enthused crowd of pro-lifers to be "a voice for the voiceless, for mothers and babies, for the Culture of Life."

Source: CNA
Date Published: July 13, 2010

Abortion Clinic Owner Responds with Chainsaw as Radio Blares: 'God Bless Pro-Lifers!'

     


The staff at the Rockford abortion mill, which has been blaring the radio through its speakers to drown out pro-life counselors for several weeks, got an unpleasant surprise Friday morning when a local D.J. found out what his show was being used for.

LifeSiteNews.com has reported numerous times on the bizarre Rockford abortuary, which has taken to taunting pro-life witnesses with signage and other paraphernalia mocking Christianity and Jesus Christ, and even directing personal insults at local pro-lifers. 

The facility's latest form of harassment, blasting a radio talk show through its outdoor speakers to keep women from hearing the message of pro-life counselors gathered outside, backfired when D.J. Doug McDuff's scheduled talk show guest cancelled, and he opened the phone lines for comment.

Seeing his chance, Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott whipped out his cell phone and was on air within seconds, loud and clear outside the abortion centre where he was standing. Rilott took the opportunity to explain to McDuff and his listeners how the radio station, WNTA, was being used to silence pro-lifers' attempt to help mothers in need.

McDuff, none too pleased, decided to take matters into his own hands. "God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers!" the D.J. shouted.

One of the staff members, who was walking from across the parking lot at that moment, was so aghast, Rilott told LifeSiteNews.com, that "I thought she was going to have a heart attack."

"The abortion mill nurse who heard this began waving her arms around her head like she couldn't believe what was being broadcast over the abortion mill public address system," related Rilott. "The look of almost terror and confusion on her face was priceless as she scrambled into the mill."

The D.J. then gave Rilott airtime to explain how those who keep vigil outside the Rockford mill come "to offer love, help, and hope to mothers in need," and to request prayer for mothers in need and an end to abortion.

The landlord of the abortion mill, still determined to drown out both the radio and the pro-lifers, charged outdoors with a chainsaw running. But even that was not enough to prevent at least one mother from hearing the message and choosing life for her baby.

Rilott said that a woman who had entered the clinic earlier in the morning left after the incident, before the abortionist arrived for the day. "She certainly heard it inside the clinic, and when she left she gave us a big smile and thumbs-up, and she left before the abortionists arrived," he told LSN. "So it was a good day."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 9, 2010

Federal Bill Puts Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the Crosshairs

     

Pro-life pregnancy centers, which focus on providing free resources and information to women in crisis pregnancies to allow them to keep their babies, are facing a new attack from pro-abortion groups, and this time through Congress.

U.S. Rep. Maloney (D-NY) and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) are sponsoring a bill that would demand the Federal Trade Commission to develop advertising rules that would restrict the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to reach out to women with crisis pregnancies. 
  
Maloney's "Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women's Services Act" (H.R. 2478) purports to stop "any person from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services."

"This bill is not at all what it sounds like," said Joe Young, President of Heartbeat International, which is an association of more than 1100 pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, pregnancy help medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries.

"Pregnancy centers are reducing the number of abortion sales and this aggravates the abortion industry. A more accurate name for this bill might be 'Stop Alternatives to Abortion Advertising to Pay Back the Abortion Industry Act.' This is an attempt to prevent women who deserve choices from connecting with pregnancy help centers."

Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) charged that most CPCs "do not offer comprehensive reproductive health care options or medically accurate information."

But Heartbeat International says that its affiliates have pledged to uphold the "Commitment of Care and Competence," which is the set of operating principles CPCs abide by. This commitment requires that all advertising and client communications be truthful and accurately describe the services offered – namely, providing accurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, abortion procedures and risks, lifestyle issues, and related concerns.

Based upon the recent actions of NARAL, it would appear that the abortion group is much more interested in shutting CPCs down, period, than simply stopping what they call "deceptive" advertising. NARAL recently sent a letter to YellowPages.com and SuperPages.com, asking the phone directories to remove all advertisements for CPCs.

Heartbeat pointed out that one of the "deceptive" practices that NARAL Virginia has accused CPCs of using was a roadside billboard reading "Pregnant? Need help? Call 800-395-HELP." This was deemed deceptive because the women answering the phone for the helpline do not recommend abortion.

Crisis pregnancy centers have been under vigorous sustained assault in recent years for providing women alternatives to abortion. Abortion advocates have been especially furious that CPCs would install themselves in the same neighborhoods as abortion clinics, or even right across from them.

Joan Malin, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City, emphasized this point when she complained that CPCs were "deliberately confus[ing] women by establishing themselves near legitimate reproductive health care centers.  These fake clinics have opened in close proximity to our Brooklyn and Bronx centers, misleading clients seeking the unbiased care that Planned Parenthood provides."

"Planned Parenthood knows that women are completely capable of making the best decision for themselves and their families - without coercion, intimidation or lies," she added.

Pro-lifers, however, have pointed out the irony of Planned Parenthood charging CPC's with not providing "accurate" information. "Coercion, intimidation, and lies" (in the words of PP New York CEO Malin) are at the very heart of a crisis of credibility that Planned Parenthood has experienced in recent years.

A series of sting operations conducted by pro-life journalists with a group called Live Action have revealed that on numerous occasions Planned Parenthood employees have engaged in grossly unethical practices such as giving clients medically inaccurate information about fetal development, advising minors how to bypass the state's parental consent laws, or even assisting minors in obtaining an illegal abortion that would cover up statutory rape.

CPCs, on the other hand, have had to deal with the problem of abortion clinics posing as places that offer "abortion alternatives." In 2006, Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers filed suit against "Dr. Emily's" abortion facilities with sites in the Bronx and downtown Brooklyn, because it was using "Abortion Alternatives" advertising to bring women into their abortuaries.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 9, 2010

Government’s New $25-Million Fund to Help Pregnant Teens May Benefit Abortion Providers, Pro-Family Advocates Say

     

The Department of Health and Human Services -- as directed by the new health care law -- is now accepting applications for a grant program that will help states provide support services to pregnant teens and women.
 
Such support services already exist in the form of privately funded pregnancy resource centers, which don't expect to benefit from the new federal program, said a spokesman for one pregnancy resource center. 
 
The Pregnancy Assistance Fund – established on page 2,162 of the new health care law – offers states a total of $25 million for each fiscal year through 2019. 

States that win the grants will distribute the money to organizations and programs that support pregnant or parenting teens and women who want to complete high school or college, for example, or who need access to health care, child care, housing and "other critical support." The Health and Human Services Department also announced that states may use the funds to combat violence against pregnant women.
 
But some pro-life and pro-family advocates point out that pregnancy resource centers have provided similar support services for decades -- without government funding. The pro-life advocates see the new grant program as a way for the Obama administration to funnel more taxpayer dollars to pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
 
Jeanneane Maxon, general counsel with Care Net, a national affiliation organization of more than 1,100 pregnancy resources centers the United States, told CNSNews.com that one particular program mentioned in the grant application is a good indication of the kind of groups that will end up getting the money.

Section IV of the grant application asks applicants to describe how they would use the grant money, and it cites as a successful example "Text4baby," a program designed by the federal government in partnership with the Guttmacher Institute and organizations affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
 
"I think it's fair to say (pregnancy resource centers) will find it challenging to apply for these grants," Maxon said.
 
When asked by CNSNews.com if pro-life groups such as pregnancy resource centers would be eligible for the grants, a spokesman with the Health and Human Services Department's Office of Public Health said no groups are prohibited from receiving funds as long as a state or tribe agrees that the services offered by a group meet the criteria of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund.
 
"Any organization is eligible to apply, and those that do receive funds must use them in compliance with the program requirements," the spokesperson said.
 
In announcing the $25-million grant program on July 2, the Health and Human Services Department listed institutions of higher education, high schools, community organizations, and state attorneys-general offices as "potential partners for States in this program."
 
But critics such as the Family Research Council charge that pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, will be vying for the funds. 
 
"FRC has been a leading voice for life-affirming pregnancy services, but we strongly oppose the idea that these grant recipients should include any group that financially profits from abortions," the group said in a statement. 
 
"The only way to help these mothers and their babies is by funneling the $25 million to organizations that won't make a profit from their work, namely pregnancy resources centers," the statement said. "And if President Obama truly cared about these women, HHS would have issued real regulations--this time enforcing his Executive Order to strip abortion from the health care bill."
 
Melinda Delahoyde, president of Care Net, noted that the federal government already gives Planned Parenthood millions of taxpayer dollars:
 
"While the government annually provides $350 million to Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider, virtually no federal funds have been allocated for the purpose of helping women who choose to carry to term," Delahoyde told CNSNews.com. 
 
"We are encouraged that the government is finally setting aside a small amount of funds in the Pregnancy Assistance Fund to support those women who make the courageous and selfless choice to give life to their babies despite life's challenges.  
 
"Our hope is that the White House will be true to its word and use this money to reduce abortion by giving it to those organizations that truly help women choose life," Delahoyde said. "We also hope that the White House will use this opportunity to commend Pregnancy Resource Centers, which have already been providing these services to pregnant women for over 40 years at virtually no cost to the U.S. taxpayer."
 
Joe Young, vice president of ministry for Heartbeat International, an association of 1,100 pregnancy-help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries, told CNSNews.com that $25 million for teens and women who have their babies is a "drop in the bucket" compared with the money the government spends on abortion providers.
 
A May 28, 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows taxpayers paid $967.1 million to groups that perform or promote abortion between 2002 and 2009.

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes and all U.S. territories are eligible to apply for the federal grants by the August 2 deadline. HHS said it expects to award up to 25 grants in the amounts of $500,000 to $2,000,000 per year. 

Some of the grant money is expected to go to programs that provide parenting resources for students in high school and college. Those resources may range from education and job training to material support, including baby clothes and equipment.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: July 12, 2010